Should the President of the USA be above the law?

[Loach]

@Grestarian

Wait, wait…

Didn’t the French also address that sticky issue in the Magna Carta, roughly a half-millenium ago?

And didn’t the Colonies (thereafter known as the political experiment called the United States) use that Magna Carta (and, in particular, those particular models therein) as the core of their new Constitution?

I realize the “United” part has become something of a global joke, but I don’t recall any news about that Constitution being revised to exclude the part about governmental leader-types NOT being immune to legal prosecution.

Was I asleep during that event?

–G!

Magna Carta French? Maybe I was sleeping.

[Grestarian]

@RickJay

It would be almost impossible not to put up someone better. The question is whether or not the election will be fairly contested. As we saw in Georgia last year, American elections are not always guaranteed to be real elections.

What I truly fear is that members of the Democratic Party will see things the same way and hundreds will throw their hats in the ring. Then the race-to-the-Primaries is going to be a long process of weeding out candidates who may consider themselves better-than-Trump and may, in fact, be correct even though they’re not the highest quality candidates for running the country or leading the nation, much less leading the globe.

What the Democratic party needs is to find really high-quality experienced leaders whose credentials and integrity are demonstrable and lauded. They need to be more than ‘better-than-Trump’ because, when you really honestly think about it, that’s a pretty low barrier to overcome. What they need is a modern better-than-JFK candidate who can pull the country out of this trench, or at least put it back on level ground – make America *respectable *again.

But I’ve grown to be quite a cynic. I don’t think such a person exists.

–G!

[Grestarian]

@Loach

Magna Carta French? Maybe I was sleeping.

Sorry…wrong side of the Channel!
While writing this I happened to be correcting a coworker, noting that Mexico’s Cinco De Mayo was about expelling the French, not the Spanish.

We’ll worry about that in a few weeks, when I start complaining about locals just using it as an excuse to get wasted on Mexican beer.

Carry on…
–G!

[Chronos]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[RTFirefly]

@MandaJo

I detest Trump, but it makes sense to me that a president ought not be indicted. He should be impeached. At that point, he can be indicted, or when he leaves office. I think it is otherwise too likely to be abused.

The problem, from my perspective, is the enormous gap between what an ordinary citizen would be indicted and likely do significant prison time for, and what it takes to get a President impeached and removed.

From one side or the other, that gap needs to be substantially narrowed. As long as the President is immune from indictment, and impeachment remains a near-impossibility, the President is effectively above the law.

I’ll admit that I have no brilliant ideas as to how. I agree that the President should be free from the law being used as a tool of harassment against him, but I’d say the same should be true for ordinary citizens, who have far less recourse when it happens to them.

I have one minor suggestion: as long as the President is effectively shielded from indictment by his office, the statutes of limitations for any crimes he may have committed before or during his Presidency should not run while he is in office. IOW, if Trump committed a crime on January 20, 2014, and it had a 5-year statute of limitations, the statute of limitations would still have two years to run when he left office by whatever means. And if he committed that crime any time while he was in office, the statute of limitations would have the full 5 years to run when he left office.

It might help a little, it might help a lot: I don’t know, but it’s all I’ve got.

[RTFirefly]

@Grestarian

We’ll worry about that in a few weeks, when I start complaining about locals just using it as an excuse to get wasted on Mexican beer.

You say that like there’s something wrong with that.

(Who needs an excuse, anyway? A bottle or two of Negra Modelo would go down real good right about now. :))

[Ace309]

@enipla

Three questions please.

1- Should a president be able to indicted for suspected crimes that has clear evidence of such?

No, the remedy is impeachment. Clear evidence should make impeachment easy.

@enipla

2 - Should a president be able to be arrested for obvious crimes that where in full view and undeniable.

No, the remedy is impeachment.

@enipla

3 - Is the President of the United States above the law.

No.

[Ace309]

@enipla

I’m fine with him not being impeached for screwing porn stars, though if he was a democrat he would have been drawn and quartered for that.

When the best argument you can put forward is what you imagine might happen under different circumstances, you’re making a pretty poor case.

[begbert2]

I hate to be the person saying that Trump should get to pass Go before going to jail, but I too am of the opinion that presidents should be held accountable by the legislative branch, just like the constitution says.

Of course, that presumes that the legislative branch does their fucking jobs, which is apparently a delusional wish. Stupid delusional founding fathers…

[Ace309]

@RTFirefly

I have one minor suggestion: as long as the President is effectively shielded from indictment by his office, the statutes of limitations for any crimes he may have committed before or during his Presidency should not run while he is in office. IOW, if Trump committed a crime on January 20, 2014, and it had a 5-year statute of limitations, the statute of limitations would still have two years to run when he left office by whatever means. And if he committed that crime any time while he was in office, the statute of limitations would have the full 5 years to run when he left office.

This seems eminently reasonable to me.

[kaylasdad99]

@Gatopescado

Jesus, Democrats. Just put up anybody **not worse than him, and he’ll be gone.

Can you fucking manage that?

We managed it in 2016 and he won anyway.

[kaylasdad99]

@UltraVires

A citation is a courtesy in most states. Police still have the power to make a custodial arrest even for minor traffic violations. What would happen if it that county that hated Obama, that was insisted upon?

They’d have to extradite him to Missabama first. :dubious:

[enipla]

@RTFirefly

I have one minor suggestion: as long as the President is effectively shielded from indictment by his office, the statutes of limitations for any crimes he may have committed before or during his Presidency should not run while he is in office. IOW, if Trump committed a crime on January 20, 2014, and it had a 5-year statute of limitations, the statute of limitations would still have two years to run when he left office by whatever means. And if he committed that crime any time while he was in office, the statute of limitations would have the full 5 years to run when he left office.

It might help a little, it might help a lot: I don’t know, but it’s all I’ve got.

I like this idea. It may at least keep their hands out of the cookie jar.

[JRDelirious]

Whoever the president and whatever the actions to be taken, ISTM there must be a clear rule on this and it must be clearly written down and uniformly enforced. The age of depending on reasonableness, common decency, “gentlemen’s agreements” and “that’s just not done” appears to be gone.

[carnut]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No - remember the president is just a public servant.

[kaylasdad99]

@carnut

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No - remember the president is just a public servant.

Maybe somebody should have made a point of mentioning that SERVANT thing in 2015.

In glowing fiery letters one mile high, for preference.